I am coordinating a writing and reading comprehension course and I must say that the instructors have opened our eyes to the written word and your understanding. Remembering the correct construction of a sentence sounds like a sterile exercise because we already learned it in elementary school. Also, we write all the time, so we don’t need to learn how to do it. The truth is that, despite the above, we are not always successful since the result can be a sum of words in disorder devoid of meaning. Writing clearly and with little is not easy. The same thing usually happens when read a text when the magic of communication is not achieved. In such cases, the main idea is drowned in the river of words and no message is conveyed. To avoid this, it is advisable re-study syntax and spelling. Those who know, recommend in this regard: That the point arrives soon, that the comma separates complete ideas and that the sentences are short. They also maintain that you have to write precise, brief and clear. On the other hand, they are experts in diagnosing diseases such as queísmo or identifying on the first reading of a paragraph of twelve words, if ten end in “ía”. They call this other evil cacophony. They are convinced that the blank page and the pencil are surrounded by outlaws who like the excessive use of verbs to create, according to them, powerful images. All this comes to mind for them to decide whether or not it is necessary to enroll in a course like the one mentioned. While they decide, I invite Pablo Sol to reflect on a job that criticizes words with words:
The main idea of the text Criticism of Pablo Sol is to describe the characteristics of the office of the literary critic. It begins by establishing the differences between the texts of literary criticism and literature itself, understood as an artistic creation. However, he maintains that criticism can reach the aesthetics of literature if its form and content manage to make correlations, if it compares, if it infers ulterior ideas. But, even achieving it, Pasol places it on the first rung of the ladder that literature climbs.
However, the author believes that the good critic is capable of making art despite the fact that its text arises from another. To support these affirmations, Pasol analyzes the different aspects of the art of writing about what is written, establishing some differences between the literary text and the critic. He begins by noticing a difficulty: words are criticized with other words. That is, a text is written to talk about another text.
It also points out some myths about the criticism, as it must always be negative. In the same vein, he adds that the Literary critic A professional must be willing to review and give his opinion not only of the texts he likes, but also read the good and bad ones. If he does, he will identify the mediocre jobs and also the fraudulent ones. He will be able, in the best of cases, to read, between the lines, and find the central spirit of the text that he analyzes and thus judge it.
Finally, Pasol believes that the work is the way in which the artist shares with us how he sees the world, it is his eyes that speak to us, instead, the critical You have to be able to use multiple lenses to focus and talk about reality. In addition to bifocals, you must bring a book under the arm and then another, and another, and one more. So, if they decide not to enroll in a course, read and you will surely write and understand better.
In case you didn’t read it:
#Write #understand #read